Craving Peaches

There are a great deal many things that are not impossible, whether we are talking about a fictional fantasy world or not. That does not mean they will happen, nor does it indicate how probable they are beyond the probability being greater than zero. Assuming that the theory is possible, which is not a given regardless of it being in a fictional setting, if we examine some of the assertions that this proposal rests upon, it does not look probable. 1. It assumes, and the whole foundation of the theory rests upon, Mance being present at the Harrenhal Tourney. This should technically be possible as Mance is old enough, but there is no evidence for it. There is actually evidence against it, because we know the Watchman who attended the tourney was a 'wondering crow', and we know that Mance was a ranger, not a recruiter. It is more likely to be Yoren than Mance based on this information. 2. It assumes that, as well as being present at the Tourney, Mance already at that time was striving to create chaos in Westeros. This is based on slim/no evidence. Even if we disregard what Mance says about the specific incident with the cloak causing him to desert, and assume (against the evidence) he always intended to desert, Mance's goal was never to 'create chaos' or 'cause disruption amongst the ruling class' and 'destroy the social order' like some anarchist or communist revolutionary. His goal of getting the Freefolk across the Wall was based on saving them from the Others. Which is a goal based on the appearance of the Others. The Others have not been sighted for thousands of years at the time of the Tourney. So unless the Others were active then, of which there is no evidence, Mance has no reasonable motive to be causing any chaos at this point. In order for this to work, Mance's motivations and history have to be ignored/made up. 3. It assumes Rhaegar would listen to some random watchmen just because he knew some songs and it assumes Mance knew who Master Aemon was. 4. It assumes Lyanna and Mance had a prior relationship. 5. It assumes that Mance would be able to transport cut blue roses from wherever they grow in the North to the Tourney without them wilting/dying. In short, the whole theory rests on assumptions with slim to no evidence backing it up. It is also likely the theory is motivated by dislike of the Starks/North in general based on statements like this:

Here is Bing AI's response to this question when I searched for it:

Why are we doing the exact same thread with the only difference being one character not related in any way to ASoIaF is swappped out with another character not related in any way to ASoIaF?

Maybe because Tyrion seemed to be presenting it as a binary choice?: Live as a slave or die, which does not account for the possibility of successfully resisting slavery by e.g. running away.

I agree. I also think Tyrion may partially be basing his view of average peasant life on the time he spent with Tysha.

Even if it's crazy, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Winged snake is probably a dragon but they are a magic creature in their own right too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winged_serpent There is also a 'real' flying snake, but I am fairly sure that was not what was in the vision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysopelea

Not sure about that given he runs away when the king and capital are under attack. They could have done the same thing with a less important seat. I think it makes more sense to save Harrenhal for someone who would need a greater reward. I thought it was more the way Cersei went about it, i.e. publicly snubbing Mace, putting incompetent or unreliable people on the Small Council.

Love how the whole Tully bloodline is somehow psychosis waiting in the wings just because Catelyn has a breakdown after her husband, and two sons (from her perspective) are killed, followed shortly by her last surviving son being butchered in front of her in a violation of the most basic and sacred law in their society; but when a Targaryen is just naturally a psycho, it is never their genes at fault but because the maesters poisoned them or something.

I find Lysa far more sympathetic than Cersei.

Reads like an in-universe conspiracy theorist apart from here: Where it sounds like a Targaryen propagandist. 5/10.

Daenerys was acting like a proto-fascist by the end of that but not because she killed the slavers.

I think the Houthis attacked because Iran told them to, not because of the situation in Gaza.

My personal theory to reconcile the discrepancy is that the blue-eyed Renly in Clash was actually one of Robert's bastards serving as a body double, and therefore the real green-eyed Renly is still alive.

Monotheism is undoubtedly superior in EU4 though.

Also, anything involving either time travel or changing the events of the past (both in-universe and retcons).

The argument I've seen is that Big G let it happen because 'free will'.* Most arguments seem to be 'free will' or that it was 'all part of the plan', 'God works in mysterious ways'. *Although this appears to contradict the following Bible passage. https://www.bibleref.com/Genesis/3/Genesis-3-22.html The tone sounds like it wasn't part of the plan, also why is Adam not allowed to live forever? What about free will? Shouldn't he have that choice? Also, who is God talking to?

Whatever Pharaoh Akhenaten was doing was on point In all seriousness, polytheism (no hate on monotheism though). Some points are serious, some less so. 1. Supreme Power Power Set Most monotheistic religions appear to ascribe characteristics to the Creator that they seem unlikely to possess at the same time. I find it hard to accept that the power that be is simultaneously all-powerful, all-seeing, and all-benevolent. I know there is the free will argument, but you also have people suffering despite not choosing to do so, just because other people chose to cause said suffering, so I guess their free will to harm others trumps the free will of other people to not be harmed (I would be interested if there is a theological argument to address this point). 2. Supreme Power is Harder to Relate To Arguably it can be easier to 'connect' to gods from the various polytheistic pantheons because they are more like real humans. Make mistakes, display human emotion more frequently, etc. And they relate to concepts that are easier to grasp such as the sea, the sky and so on. There is also often a more tangible element to worshipping them. And, if Odin doesn't answer your prayer, you can try Thor instead, whereas if God doesn't answer your prayer, you seem kind of stuck? 3. Polytheist 'Lore' is potentially better The drama is better since the stakes are real. Gods vs other gods or mythological beings, where the gods could actually be hurt/killed, or a human being brave enough to take on a god, has more dramatic tension for me than, for example, the Bible. In the Bible, it is obvious that whomever has God on their side will win. Also, the Bible seems to have very obvious continuity issues (some of which can be solved with Gnosticism), which I don't see so much with polytheistic works. Bible also has moments where someone slips up and admits the polytheistic nature of the world. Translation errors may also be more of an issue. And you have to read quite a few parts of the Bible metaphorically or they either don't make sense or are not suitable for the modern world.

Same. I wouldn't say that I necessarily 'like' the theory but it seems more plausible than some of the others here (foreshadowing, doesn't seem to conflict with anything).

Dothraki lose to eunuch knock-off Spartans just because basic tactics, so unless they get major feats added (retconned) in the next book no one should really take them seriously. They scale way below IRL Mongols who scale below rough IRL equivalent of Westerosi armies as is continuously and eloquently pointed out by Aldarion.

Which is exactly how to beat them, because Dumbthraki have zero siege engines, and will starve in a siege lasting any length of time because it is Winter and local supplies are depleted, and Daenerys will not be able to magically ship enough food over. More like most of the Dothrakidiots will die before they get close since their best strategy is to charge right at the enemy and they have no armour. And they are invading a wartorn, short on food continent in Winter with the terrain against them.

Ruins the whole 'the son Tywin hated was the most like him' thing, which is why if there must be secret Targaryens, Jaime and Cersei being secret Targaryens works better.

• Mance = Rhaegar (dislike most x = y (where y is someone who is either obviously dead, or death is needed for narrative purposes and story becomes less compelling if they were alive; but this one irks me in particular for some reason) • Daenerys = random girl • Daenerys is a paedo • Jon parentage theories where having them get together requires loads of plot convenience, including conflicting with the timeline, people not noticing they are gone, people with no hitherto hinted at connection being close friends etc. • Targaryens are saviours of Westeros • Westeros is Earth in the future • Bloodraven mind control behind everything

I get the impression killing people in a Sept (especially if they have taken refuge there), or attacking a Sept would be considered a war crime, but it might be a crime against religion instead.

It was ruled by the Ottomans, but as far as I am aware it was the Arabs who were actually living there, not Turks?